Frontpage featured

Republican State Senator Norman W. Sanderson of eastern North Carolina has been arrested in Raleigh on a charge of driving while impaired, according to public records.

North Carolina-based WRAL News reported Sunday that the 74‑year‑old Republican from Pamlico County was taken into custody Saturday near the junction of Edwards Mill Road and Trinity Road in Raleigh.

In addition to the DWI charge, Sanderson reportedly faces two misdemeanor counts: failure to obey a traffic officer and transporting an open container of alcohol.

According to the report, he posted a $2,000 bond and is scheduled to appear in court on November 7.

On Sunday, a spokesperson for the Senate Republican Caucus released a statement from Sanderson:

“Last night I made a regrettable mistake, and I take responsibility for my actions. I want to apologize to my constituents, my colleagues, and my family for letting them down. I commend the State Highway Patrol and the Wake County Sheriff’s Office for their professionalism during the incident.”

Sanderson represents North Carolina’s 2nd Senate District, covering several eastern counties including Carteret, Chowan, Halifax, Hyde, Martin, Pamlico, Warren and Washington.

The standoff over the federal shutdown has exposed deep fractures within the GOP, particularly around health care — a longstanding vulnerability for Republicans.

The New York Times highlighted in a report Sunday that while Democrats insist they will not support a spending deal without extending the expiring tax credits under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that safeguard coverage for millions, Republicans are split between ideology and electoral reality.

On one end, hard-line conservatives still press to eliminate the ACA outright; on the other, pragmatists recognize that wiping it out without a credible replacement could inflict “a political disaster” on their party, per the report.

The shutdown has forced the GOP into a public tug-of-war over what to do with a law they largely oppose but cannot realistically undo without major risk.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) insisted the dispute is not about health care, calling Democrats’ insistence on subsidies a “red herring” that distracts from the funding fight.

At the same time, top Republicans such as House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) pledged to vote against extending the credits, arguing they would “bail out insurance companies,” even as many recipients live in GOP-held districts.

At least 14 House Republicans and several senators signaled they would support a renewal of the credits through 2027, recognizing what some advisers called “a potential political catastrophe for the G.O.P.” if coverage were lost.

The report noted that the broader dynamic reveals why the party remains stuck. Even though Republicans have long pledged to “repeal and replace” the ACA, they have repeatedly failed to articulate what “replace” means in practice. The 2017 Senate health care bill collapsed amid conservative-moderate splits, leaving GOP leaders without an alternative mapped out.

According to the report, Democrats "have forced the G.O.P. to wrestle publicly with its divisions about what to do with the health care law, which most Republicans revile but many recognize would be impossible to unravel without bringing political disaster to their party.”

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) is said to be redefining her role within the Republican Party by challenging both party leadership and President Donald Trump on key issues.

A report published in the Guardian on Sunday noted that once a staunch ally of Trump, Greene has recently diverged from Republican orthodoxy on several fronts. She has criticized the White House's plans to send military aid to Ukraine, labeled Israel's actions in Gaza as "genocide," and called for the release of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein.

The report said Green "has increasingly gone rogue on both domestic and foreign policy."

These positions have set her apart from many of her GOP colleagues, who continue to support Trump and maintain traditional party lines. One of Greene's most notable departures from party unity has been her stance on healthcare. She has sided with Democrats in advocating for the continuation of Affordable Care Act subsidies, arguing that allowing them to expire would lead to significant premium increases for her constituents.

In a social media post, Greene stated, “I’m going to go against everyone on this issue because when the tax credits expire this year my own adult children’s insurance premiums for 2026 are going to DOUBLE.”

The report notes that despite these divergences, Greene has been careful to maintain her support for Trump. She has avoided direct criticism of the president, instead framing her actions as representing the interests of her district over party loyalty.

In an interview with The Hill, she emphasized, “I am 100% the same person today as I was when I ran for Congress,” suggesting that her recent positions are consistent with her populist roots.

Meanwhile, political analysts view Greene's actions as a reflection of a broader populist sentiment within the Republican base.

Henry Olsen of the Ethics and Public Policy Center told the Guardian that Greene's positions resonate with many Republicans who support government action to assist working-class Americans, aligning with Trump's economic populism.

The article noted that some observers suggest Greene's dissent may be motivated by personal ambitions. Reports indicate she considered running for governor or senator in Georgia but was discouraged by the White House due to concerns about her divisiveness.

Jeff Timmer of the Lincoln Project speculated that Greene's recent actions could be a response to being sidelined, stating, “They didn’t want her to run; she’s getting a pound of flesh," he told the outlet.

Political scientist Andra Gillespie from Emory University described Greene as a “complex politician” who is making “interesting choices.”

She suggested that Greene's actions reflect a delegate-style representation, where she prioritizes the views of her district over party lines.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is under fire after posting a hostile and defensive social media statement late Wednesday afternoon, lashing out at damning CNN reporting that exposed FEMA’s delayed response to the deadly Texas floods. Intended as a rebuttal, the DHS post instead confirmed several of CNN’s alarming findings. At least 120 people are confirmed dead, and over 160 remain missing.

Central to FEMA’s late response: Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has instituted a new rule that contracts and grants over $100,000 require her personal signature. Under Noem, DHS’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) as of last month was $1 billion over budget, leading some, including members of Congress, to question the legality of her actions.

CNN reported that “even as Texas rescue crews raced to save lives, FEMA officials realized they needed Noem’s approval before sending [in] additional assets. Noem didn’t authorize FEMA’s deployment of Urban Search and Rescue teams until Monday, more than 72 hours after the flooding began, multiple sources told CNN.”

READ MORE: Trump Dodges, Denies and Deflects Questions as Ukraine Weapons Scandal Grows

Sending in critical search and rescue teams days after the flooding began was not the only damaging finding.

CNN also reported that “the additional red tape required at FEMA added another hurdle to getting critical federal resources deployed when hours counted,” noting that “Texas did request aerial imagery from FEMA to aid search and rescue operations, a source told CNN, but that was delayed as it awaited Noem’s approval for the necessary contract.”

Also, “FEMA staff have also been answering phones at a disaster call center, where, according to one agency official, callers have faced longer wait times as the agency awaited Noem’s approval for a contract to bring in additional support staff.”

In its social media statement (below), DHS posted the CNN headline and wrote: “This is a FAKE NEWS LIE from CNN.” The headline read: “FEMA’s response to Texas flood slowed by Noem’s cost controls.”

“This reporting is an unapparelled display of activist journalism and distracts from the robust, coordinated federal response led by Secretary Noem that has saved over 900+ lives,” the DHS statement reads.

“President Trump approved a Major Disaster Declaration, hours after Governor Greg Abbott’s request. By Tuesday, FEMA had deployed 311 staffers, providing support and shelter for hundreds of people.”

The flooding started Friday. Tuesday is four days later.

CNN also reported facts that DHS’s statement called “fake news,” but then confirmed in its own statement.

“By Monday night, only 86 FEMA staffers had been deployed, according to internal FEMA data seen by CNN — a fraction of the typical response for a disaster of this scale,” the news network reported. “By Tuesday night, the federal response expanded to 311 staffers deployed, the data showed.”

DHS wrote: “By Tuesday, FEMA had deployed 311 staffers, providing support and shelter for hundreds of people.”

CNN also reported: “Multiple FEMA officials told CNN that they were taken aback by the agency’s relatively limited response in the immediate aftermath of the disaster.”

RELATED: ‘Secretary Chaos’: Hegseth Running ‘Absolute Clown Show’ Critics Say, Amid Calls to Resign

Noem’s “office has delegated little authority to acting FEMA Administrator David Richardson, who, as of Wednesday morning, has yet to visit Texas since the flooding began, multiple FEMA officials told CNN.”

A DHS spokesperson in a statement to CNN and other news outlets wrote: “DHS and its components have taken an all-hands-on-desk approach to respond to recovery efforts in Kerrville.”

Critics pushed back against DHS’s statement, at times mocking the department’s remarks.

CNN’s Aaron Blake, whose byline is not on the report, on social media wrote: “This statement doesn’t actually dispute the reporting. In fact, it says, ‘By Tuesday, FEMA had deployed 311 staffers …’ Tuesday is, quite notably, after the 72-hour window.”

“Again,” offered Jason Kinney, a public affairs consultant and political communications expert, “this is what happens when your Administration lives in an alternative reality where improv lying is standard operating procedure. No one believes you, even when it’s really important stuff.”

“NONE of this below responds to the problems & delays CNN reported in its detailed, sourced article,” wrote Robert Elisberg, a political commentator. “CNN did not say FEMA did nothing. But that they didn’t do some important things they usually do. DHS has long lost credibility, & sadly their note below doesn’t improve on that.”

Mediaite reported: “DHS’s over‑the‑top rebuttal underscores the power of CNN’s reporting. The statement reinforces — not refutes — the 72‑hour timeline. That leaves us with a rhetorical shell game: furious denials wrapped in the very narrative they aim to quash.”

Former Bloomberg Opinion economics writer Noah Smith wrote of the DHS post: “This is just absolute cringe.”

Read the DHS post below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘No Amnesty’ and No Plan: Trump Ag Sec Grilled on Farm Labor as Deportations Continue

The superminority status of the Florida Democratic Party in the state Legislature just got smaller when Democratic Senate Leader Jason Pizzo stunningly announced that he was leaving the party and would become a political independent.

Democrats already had just 11 members in the 40-member chamber, after Orange County Sen. Geraldine Thompson died just weeks before this year’s legislative session began. They are now down to just 10 members.

“The Democratic Party in Florida is dead,” he said while speaking on the floor of the Senate following the conclusion of the chamber’s business for the day. “But there are good people that can resuscitate it, but they don’t want it to be me.”

He went on to say that the Democratic Party that his father volunteered for when John F. Kennedy ran for president in 1960 was not the same party today.

“It craves and screams anarchy and then demands amnesty, and that’s not okay,” he said. “I’ve always been criticized by the far left and the far right, but you know what the small businesses and the hard-working families and the teachers and the cops and the firemen want us to do? Be public servants, not politicians.”

A former assistant state’s attorney in Miami-Dade County, Pizzo has had a reputation as a centrist Democrat since his election to the Senate in 2018, and at times has angered the more liberal parts of the party, particularly regarding criminal justice issues.

He’s also one of the wealthiest members of the Legislature, with an estimated worth of $59 million, based on his 2023 financial disclosure forms.

Whether this will affect his putative plan to run for governor is uncertain at this point. He has previously said he was considering the possibility, although he said in January that he would not run as a political independent.

Some of the party’s top leaders reacted with anger to Pizzo’s announcement.

“Jason Pizzo is one of the most ineffective and unpopular Democratic leaders in recent memory, and his resignation is one of the best things to happen to the party in years,” said Florida Democratic Party Chair Nikki Fried in a statement.

“His legacy as leader includes continually disparaging the party base, starting fights with other members, and chasing his own personal ambitions at the expense of Democratic values,” Fried continued.

“Jason’s failure to build support within our party for a gubernatorial run has led to this final embarrassing temper tantrum. I’d be lying if I said I’m sad to see him go, but I wish him the best of luck in the political wilderness he’s created for himself. The Florida Democratic Party is more united without him.”

Hillsborough Democrat Fentrice Driskell, the party’s leader in the House, similarly made blistering remarks about her now former Democratic colleague.

“The party needs strong Democrats who are ready to stand up to Trump, not big egos more interested in performative outrage than true leadership. Legislative Democrats will be fine without him,” she said in a statement. “The Democratic Party is not dead, but if it was Jason Pizzo should consider the fact that he has been a party leader and would bear some responsibility.”

Stunned

Pizzo’s Democratic Senate colleagues seemed stunned — and more charitable about Pizzo’s bombshell.

“It’s a surprise to us,” said South Florida Democratic Sen. Shevrin Jones.

“We need to process all this information,” added Palm Beach Sen. Lori Berman. “He is certainly independent and he did what he felt was right for himself, and like Sen. Jones said, I think he’s not going to become a far-right wing Republican by any means, and he will continue to be an effective voice here in the Florida Legislature and hopefully a voice of reason, as he has been.”

Pizzo is the third state Democratic lawmaker to leave the party in the past half-year. In December, Hillsborough County Rep. Susan Valdés switched to the GOP immediately after losing a bid to lead the Hillsborough County Democratic Party. Weeks later, Broward County Democrat Hillary Cassel did the same, saying the party no longer represented her values.

Republican Party of Florida Chair Evan Power responded in a statement that Pizzo could have waited until the end of the legislative session, “but it’s clear he could no longer tolerate the direction of the party.”

Power’s comment does lead into the question of why Pizzo chose Thursday, just eight days before the legislative session is scheduled to end, to make his announcement (although Senate President Ben Albritton announced earlier in the day that the session would go beyond next Friday due to an impasse regarding the state budget).

Earlier in the day, former Florida GOP Congressman David Jolly announced that he was switching from being a non-party-affiliated voter and was now a registered Democrat, fueling speculation that he in fact will run for the party’s nomination for governor in 2026.

Florida Phoenix is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Florida Phoenix maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Michael Moline for questions: info@floridaphoenix.com.

It’s been three months since members of the 119th Congress were sworn in on Capitol Hill, and the U.S. Senate, especially, has been busy in the early days of President Donald Trump’s second administration.

A total of 41 Trump appointees have now been confirmed by the Republican-controlled upper chamber, including 21 out of 22 Cabinet-level positions. The Senate also passed a controversial short-term spending bill to fund the federal government through September, enacted new detention requirements for undocumented immigrants accused of certain crimes and repealed a handful of Biden-era rules and regulations.With Republicans holding a 53-47 Senate majority, Democrats don’t have the votes to stop most of Trump’s agenda. But liberal and progressive activists have pressured Democratic senators, including U.S. Sens. Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper of Colorado, to do more to erect procedural hurdles, slow down Senate business and vote in blanket opposition to Trump nominees as a protest against the executive branch’s unprecedented power grab. The administration’s actions have included mass firings of federal workers, purges of prosecutors involved in criminal proceedings against Trump, and attempted funding freezes and agency shutdowns that run contrary longstanding separation-of-powers principles.

When it comes to Senate floor votes, neither Hickenlooper nor Bennet has heeded the activists’ calls. They have been among the Senate Democrats most likely to back Trump’s Cabinet picks, voting to confirm eight and 10 nominees, respectively, out of the 21 selected so far.

A more comprehensive database tracking 2025 Senate votes, including votes on lower-level appointees, procedural motions and legislation, tells a similar story. The tracker, maintained by Massachusetts-based progressive organizer Jonathan Cohn, tallied 155 votes by the full Senate through March 27.

When collated with 2024 election results, this vote data shows a clear, unsurprising pattern: Senate Democrats representing swing states are more likely than those in safe blue seats to cross the aisle and back Trump’s nominees and legislative priorities. For example, Sen. Ruben Gallego of Arizona — elected narrowly in a state that Trump won by more than 5 percentage points last year — has voted with Republicans on almost 33% in 2025, while Sen. Elizabeth Warren of deep-blue Massachusetts has done so just 3% of the time.

The single biggest exception to this rule? Colorado and its moderate Senate duo, who have voted with Trump and their GOP colleagues roughly a quarter of the time while representing a state that voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris by 11 percentage points in the 2024 election.

Through the end of March, Hickenlooper — who is serving his first six-year term and up for reelection in 2026 — has been the Democratic caucus’ number one outlier, voting with Trump’s agenda almost twice as often as would be expected, based on the state’s electorate. Bennet ranks sixth out of 47 Senate Democrats by the same metric.

In comparative terms, the Centennial State finds itself in 2025 with the electorate of true-blue Illinois, but the Senate representation of purplish-red Arizona. No other state with two Democratic senators has such a large disconnect between its partisan vote share and its Senate representation. No other state besides New Hampshire even comes close.

As Democrats and independents across Colorado have begun mobilizing in recent months to oppose Trump’s agenda, their disconnect with Hickenlooper and Bennet has been on full display on social media, at town halls and demonstrations and in a daily deluge of calls and messages to the senators’ offices.

Bennet has defended his votes to confirm some Trump appointees — including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and Energy Secretary Chris Wright — on the grounds that maintaining good relationships with leaders of important executive-branch agencies will help his constituents more than a stance of blanket opposition. He’s also argued that Democrats, after being “repudiated” in the 2024 election, have to “select our battles.”

A rapid political evolution

If such messages no longer resonate the way they once did with Colorado’s Democratic base, it’s largely because of the state’s rapid political evolution in recent years.

Both of Colorado’s senators entered state politics more than 20 years ago — Hickenlooper as a successful restaurateur elected mayor of Denver in 2003, and Bennet, a friend and fellow Wesleyan University graduate, as his chief of staff. At the time, Colorado was a traditional battleground that had veered to the right: Attorney General Ken Salazar was the only statewide Democratic elected official in a state otherwise dominated by Republicans.

As recently as 2016 — when Hickenlooper and Bennet were in their second terms as Colorado governor and U.S. senator, respectively — Colorado had tilted towards Democrats but could still lay claim to bellwether status, with Republicans like former U.S. Sen. Cory Gardner able to win narrowly in favorable conditions for the GOP. But Trump’s rise abruptly ended that: In the last eight years, Democrats have gone 15 for 15 in statewide elections, winning their races by an average of more than 10 percentage points.

Much of that shift has been driven by voters in fast-growing cities and suburbs along the Front Range. Younger, left-leaning voters have moved to the state in droves. In 2024, even as Democrats lost ground in many states across the country, the party fared relatively well in Colorado, maintaining wide leads among suburban voters and even making gains in more rural areas on the Western Slope.

Political alignments like this don’t last forever. But in an era of nationally polarized politics, Trump has tanked the GOP’s electoral fortunes in Colorado, and for now, a wide gap — partly generational, partly ideological, but perhaps above all attitudinal — has opened up between the state’s two senators and many of its voters.

“Everyone out here, everyone I know — moderates, hardcore left people — they want someone who will fight,” Greeley resident Robert Casey told Bennet at a recent town hall. “And we need that.”

Colorado Newsline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Colorado Newsline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Quentin Young for questions: info@coloradonewsline.com.

Journalists covering the Feb. 28, 2025, Oval Office meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy described it as a “jaw-dropping” “spectacle” and a “striking breach of Oval Office comity.” Slate’s Fred Kaplan asserted, “Nobody has ever seen anything like it.”

People shouldn’t have been surprised.

The Oval Office encounter was expected to be an on-camera meeting between the president and the Ukrainian head of state before the signing of a crucial minerals deal between the two countries that was meant to be a key step toward ending the war in Ukraine.

But as reporters described it, the initially routine meeting devolved into a “fiery exchange” in which Trump and Vice President JD Vance “berated” and “harangued” Zelenskyy after he pushed back on Vance’s assertion that Trump’s diplomatic skills would ensure that Russian President Vladimir Putin would honor a ceasefire agreement.

Trump’s compulsion to dominate both allies and enemies seems to have caused him to jettison the negotiation the moment that Zelenskyy declined to perform subservient fealty. The meeting, which was ended by Trump with no agreement signed, illustrated why authoritarians are lousy dealmakers, particularly when autocratic instincts are exacerbated by what’s known as toxic masculinity.

Toxic masculinity is a version of masculinity that discourages empathy, expresses strength through dominance, normalizes violence against women and associates leadership with white patriarchy. It devalues behaviors considered to be “feminine” and suggests that the way to earn others’ respect is to accrue power and status.

As a communication scholar who studies gender and politics, I have written about Trump’s displays of toxic masculinity and authoritarian tendencies in a variety of situations, during and after his first presidential term.

Trump’s reaction to Zelenskyy in the Oval Office illustrates how these inclinations stymie the president’s purported dealmaking abilities, undermine democratic values and make the world a more dangerous place.

Excerpts from the Feb. 28 Oval Office meeting, featuring U.S. President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Diplomat, dealmaker or mafia don?

Trump staged the public Oval Office meeting with Zelenskyy to showcase his ostensible prowess as – in his words – an “arbitrator” and “mediator.” Trump insisted during the first 40 minutes that “my whole life is deals” and asserted that he has what it takes to make Putin conform to a peace agreement with an embattled Ukraine.

Apparently eager to project a persona as a successful diplomat and powerful dealmaker, Trump rejected a reporter’s suggestion that “you align yourself too much with Putin” and not with democratic values.

Trump contended that in order to successfully negotiate, he couldn’t alienate either Putin or Zelenskyy. “If I didn’t align myself with both of them,” he said, “you’d never have a deal.” Instead, he claimed, “I’m aligned with the United States of America and for the good of the world. I’m aligned with the world.”

Vance initially echoed Trump’s message, casting Trump as a consummate diplomat and arguing, “What makes America a good country is America engaging in diplomacy.”

But Vance’s tone shifted the moment Zelenskyy challenged Trump’s framing.

Zelenskyy provided historical examples of U.S. diplomatic failures and observed that Trump and other presidents had been unable to contain Putin. Vance responded by castigating Zelenskyy for not “thanking the president” and repeatedly instructed him to “say thank you” as the exchange grew more volatile.

Trump, seemingly angered after Vance pointed out Zelenskyy’s lack of deference, dropped his diplomatic tone and informed Zelenskyy: “You’ve got to be more thankful because let me tell you, you don’t have the cards. With us, you have the cards, but without us, you don’t have any cards.”

After the meeting, both the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman and Slate’s Kaplan compared Trump to a mafia don. The Daily Beast writer David Rothkopf suggested he was more like “the Luca Brasi for mob boss Vladimir Putin,” invoking Don Corleone’s henchman in the movie “The Godfather.”

The comparison to famous fictional mafiosos was apt. As a scholar who studies both film and politics, I have observed how both fictionalized depictions of the mafia and MAGA Republicanism are deeply patriarchal and autocratic cultures that demand loyalty, breed abuse and foster corruption.

After Trump suspended negotiations, canceled lunch and expelled the Ukrainian delegation from the White House, Reuters reported that “most Republicans rallied behind Trump and Vance.”

Democrats, a few Republican outliers and the majority of European leaders backed Zelenskyy.

President Donald Trump, center, and Vice President JD Vance meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House on Feb. 28, 2025.Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

The art of the deal’s demise

Trump cemented his reputation as an accomplished dealmaker in the 1980s, when he published the largely ghostwritten New York Times bestseller “Trump: The Art of the Deal.”

Many of his supporters voted for Trump in 2016 because they wanted a “dealmaker in chief,” as one poll characterized it, who could get things done in a fractured Congress.

In his second term, despite having a Republican congressional majority, Trump has established himself as the nation’s sole authority, embracing toxic masculinity’s theory of power and respect. Doing an end run around Congress and flouting the law, Trump initiated scores of policy changes via executive order and asserted that neither lawmakers nor judges have the authority to challenge or constrain him.

Trump’s blow-up at Zelenskyy is much more than a foreign policy snafu. It’s a preview of what will happen when toxic masculinity drives U.S. foreign policy.

Toxic masculinity on the world stage

A screenshot of various U.K. newspapers’ headlines about the Oval Office meeting.CBS Evening News

In his meeting with Trump, Zelenskyy modeled a version of masculine strength characterized by empathy, discipline and mutual respect. Focusing on the needs of his people, Zelenskyy showed Trump pictures of Ukrainian prisoners of war abused in Russian custody and advocated for the return of thousands of Ukrainian children kidnapped by Russia.

Trump initially acknowledged that Russian abuses were “tough stuff,” but concern for Ukrainians seems to have vanished after Zelenskyy politely challenged Trump.

Decrying Zelenskyy’s insufficient gratitude and escalating the conflict, Trump asserted: “You’re gambling with World War III. And what you’re doing is very disrespectful to the country, this country, that’s backed you far more than a lot of people said they should have.”

Vance similarly shifted focus from the needs of Ukrainian civilians to paying homage to Trump, demanding that Zelenskyy “offer some words of appreciation for the United States of America and the president who is trying to save your country.”

A common tactic employed by abusers is to demand that the person they are bullying show them gratitude.

In their berating, bullying and humiliation of Zelenskyy, the president and vice president used the language and rhetoric of abusers in an apparent attempt to try to force the proud and dignified leader of a country at war to grovel and get in line.

Their lack of discipline and decorum also upended the negotiation, jeopardizing a deal aimed at halting the fighting in Ukraine and advancing U.S. interests.

In my view, the toxic masculinity on display in the Oval Office on Feb. 28 was a bald demonstration of something new and alarming to a public accustomed to decorum and diplomacy in that formal setting.

For many, the enduring image of that meeting is an anxious Zelenskyy being hectored by a furious Trump.

But there’s another image that captures equally well the dynamic unfolding in the room. Ukrainian Ambassador to the U.S. Oksana Markarova sat in a chair just in front of the assembled members of the media. Papers held steady in her lap with one hand, the normally unflappable member of the diplomatic corps buried her head in her other hand, unable to even look at what was happening.

Karrin Vasby Anderson, Professor of Communication Studies, Colorado State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Maricopa County’s new recorder is rejecting an agreement that splits control of the county’s elections between his office and supervisors, and is threatening to sue the supervisors if they don’t give him more power.

This article was originally published by Votebeat, a nonprofit news organization covering local election administration and voting access.

Recorder Justin Heap’s protest puts control over elections in the state’s most populous and high-profile swing county up in the air and sets up a messy fight between prominent Republican officials that could affect voters, with local elections approaching in May and the 2026 gubernatorial election looming.

Heap, a former state representative, is seeking more staff for the recorder’s office and more control over early voting. He claimed in a news release this week that the previous board of supervisors took this away from his office in a “backroom, eleventh hour power grab,” referring to a shared-services agreement they approved shortly before he took office.

He said the new supervisors’ refusal to quickly meet to discuss a new agreement is “jeopardizing Maricopa County election readiness.”

Supervisors Chairman Thomas Galvin rebutted Heap’s claims in his own news release, saying that “conversations have been happening for weeks,” and that supervisors look forward to working with Heap on a new agreement.

Pressure is on to run smooth and accurate elections after false claims and real problems over the last four years damaged voter trust in Maricopa County. But because of the way Arizona law splits duties between the recorder and supervisors, Heap will need to collaborate with the supervisors to make that happen. The hostile start to their relationship points to the challenges.

The officials will need to reach consensus before April, when the county must send out ballots for Glendale’s and Goodyear’s all-mail elections.

Matt Salmon, a Republican former congressman who is now on the leadership team of the Democracy Defense Project, said Heap won’t be able to win the supervisors’ support — or instill confidence in voters — by being combative.

“The most important thing is that our democracy, our republic works,” Salmon said. “The people are sending folks to the county board of supervisors, and they are sending a representative to the recorder’s office, and they expect them to work together.”

Heap calls October agreement a ‘power grab’

Former Recorder Stephen Richer signed the latest agreement with the board in October — after Heap had defeated Richer in the Republican primary but before Heap won the November election.

In rejecting the agreement, Heap is continuing the aggressive tone of his campaign, in which he called the county’s elections a “laughingstock.” As a candidate, he expressed doubt over the fairness of past election results and promised voters that he would upend the election system, even though recorders in Arizona generally don’t control most of the county’s election operations.

Recorders typically oversee voter registration and early voting, while supervisors hire election directors to handle Election Day voting and ballot counting.

The supervisors, too, have said they want to improve the county’s elections. On Wednesday, they voted unanimously to set aside $480,000 for two independent audits to examine the processes and technology used to run elections. Galvin said Heap told him his office will participate.

Maricopa County supervisors have been slowly taking back control of elections from the recorder’s office over the past decade or so.

The past two recorders, Richer and Adrian Fontes — now the secretary of state — argued with supervisors over how best to divide up duties, but almost always behind closed doors. Heap’s public criticism marks a significant turn from that united front.

“There are people who work to get stuff done, and there are people who just like fighting,” Richer said in a statement. “You can get away with the latter personality type when you’re in the state Legislature, city council, or the Congress, and you’re not actually responsible for anything other than your own vote. It’s harder to survive like that when you have to run things.”

The current supervisors and Heap started out cordially. During a public budget session last month, they sat together around a table and tried to work out a key point of disagreement: who should manage the county’s election-related IT staff.

At that meeting, Heap said he hoped to audit and improve the county’s voter registration system, and needed more people and money to do that. Galvin responded that having election IT staff for both the recorder and supervisors would be redundant and more costly.

But shortly after the meeting, state lawmakers who are part of the Freedom Caucus in the Legislature began to publicly criticize Galvin, saying he was “railroading” Heap, a former caucus member, and stripping him of his budget and power.

Heap then sent out his news release on Monday and posted on social media that he was in a “BATTLE OVER MARICOPA COUNTY ELECTIONS” with supervisors.

“I don’t see this as a ‘battle,’” Galvin responded in his release.

Disagreement about what the October agreement says

Heap and the supervisors disagree not only on who should control what election functions, but also on what the October agreement says about that.

All sides agree that the October agreement shifted control of the elections IT staff and a key election database from the recorder to the supervisors. Heap wants that database, and the majority of the staff, shifted back.

But Heap also claims that the October agreement took from the recorder’s office crucial early voting processes such as sending out and receiving mail ballots. Galvin disputes that.

Heap said that after consulting with the County Attorney’s Office, he notified supervisors in January that he was rejecting the agreement, citing “a standing principle” of Arizona law that “no elected body or office may bind the powers of a future body or office.”

After that, Heap and the supervisors both hired outside lawyers to advise them on the agreement.

It’s unclear whether supervisors accept that Heap can cancel the agreement, or what happens if they don’t approve a new one. A spokesperson did not directly answer that question. But Supervisor Kate Brophy McGee said in an interview that she believes Heap’s decision doesn’t change anything yet, since the October agreement says any termination would take effect only after the next general election. That would mean it stays in place through the end of 2026.

Heap has said he won’t let that happen.

“With an election less than 90 days away,” Heap said in his release, “the Supervisors’ unwillingness to address these concerns will force me to take legal action against the Board to restore this office’s full authority, and deliver the results voters elected me to achieve.”

Jen Fifield is a reporter for Votebeat based in Arizona. Contact Jen at jfifield@votebeat.org.

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization covering local election integrity and voting access. Sign up for their newsletters here.

The president and vice president's meeting with Volodymyr Zelensky sparked mixed reactions, ranging from support to outrage among Ukrainian-Americans, in Brooklyn, according to a report in the New York Times.

Brighton Beach, a Slavic enclave in Brooklyn where Ukrainians outnumber Russians two to one, has historically been a stronghold for President Trump's support. However, following the recent White House meeting where Trump reportedly criticized President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine—signaling a shift in Mr. Trump's support for Ukraine—opinions among Ukrainian New Yorkers have become divided.

Igor Moshchinsky, 61, a Trump voter, expressed mixed feelings at a Brighton Beach Avenue café: "His approach may come across a bit too aggressive," he said of Mr. Trump, "But I don't disagree with the content of Mr. Trump's criticisms of Mr. Zelensky."

Local city councilwoman Inna Vernikov, a Republican and Trump supporter, attempted to navigate the delicate situation, according to the Times. She posted on social media that the meeting's consequences "could be disastrous" for both countries, emphasizing the importance of cooperation: "Working together to end this war and help the people of Ukraine restore their safety and sovereignty is in the best interests of both of our countries and the world."

Inna Kir, 58, a Ukrainian immigrant and lingerie shop owner on Brighton Beach Avenue, strongly supported Mr. Trump's stance. "I absolutely agree with the tough line Mr. Trump has taken against Mr. Zelensky," she stated, echoing Trump's criticism about Zelensky's perceived lack of gratitude for American aid. "I think he should appreciate what people do for him. It's our money," said Ms. Kir, who became a U.S. citizen three decades ago.

However, not all of the approximately 150,000 Ukrainian New Yorkers share this view. In Manhattan's East Village, another Ukrainian enclave, Trump's critics expressed shock at his approach.

Ivan Makar, 52, principal of the Self-Reliance Saturday School of Ukrainian Studies on East Sixth Street, didn't mince words: "I've never been so disgusted with the president of this country." Mr. Makar, whose family fled Ukraine seeking security, found the meeting deeply upsetting. "It was typical bully behavior, and Zelensky stood up to the bullies," he asserted. "As a Ukrainian, I'm proud. As an American, I'm disgusted."

Jason Birchard, 58, owner of the renowned Ukrainian restaurant Veselka in the East Village, demonstrated his support for Zelensky by wearing a T-shirt featuring the tryzub, Ukraine's national symbol. "I've worn this shirt many times over the last three years, and I made sure to dig deep into the closet today and pull it out because I really want to back Zelensky," Mr. Birchard explained as customers lined up outside his restaurant.

NOW READ: Any Democrat who's not fighting right now needs to get the hell out of our way

Once a red state, California has been heavily Democratic since the 1990s. Vice President Kamala Harris narrowly lost the 2024 election to President-elect Donald Trump, but she carried California by 20 percent (according to the Associated Press).

Yet some Californians in the agricultural industry backed Trump because of his promise to lift water restrictions.

In an article published the day after Christmas, Politico's Camille von Kaenel reports that California farmers "could soon enjoy bumper crops" but are "reckoning with an uncomfortable contradiction": Trump " also campaigned on mass deportations of undocumented immigrants, who make up at least half of the state's agricultural workforce."

READ MORE: Musk supporters outraged after he backs importing 'super talented engineers'

Chris Reardon, vice president of policy advocacy for the California Farm Bureau Federation, told Politico, "To say it would have an impact on California would be an understatement. We just don't know yet."

Von Kaenel notes that Trump's incoming second administration is "likely to undo a Biden-era rule that increased labor protections for temporary farmworkers under the H2-A visa."

Antonio De Loera, communications director for the United Farm Workers, told Politico, "Anything that happens needs to first do right by the workforce that is here, the current workforce that has been feeding us for decades."

De Loera continued, "We will not allow that workforce to be discarded and replaced by expansion of an exploitative gap worker program…. The main thing we're doing across the organization is trying to just reassure workers and empower workers, so that they're not scared by this rhetoric into accepting working conditions that are dangerous."

READ MORE: 'Throwing in the towel': NYT columnist slammed for urging Trump critics to 'wish new admin well'

Read the full Politico article at this link.

With President-elect Donald Trump having made some highly controversial picks for his incoming cabinet — among them, former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Florida) for U.S. attorney general, anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist Robert F. Kennedy to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard for nationalist intelligence director — many reporters are raising questions about their ability to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate

Some of Trump's more controversial picks may encounter resistance from not only Democratic senators, but GOP senators as well.

Trump, in response, has threatened to use the process known as "recess appointments" if Senate Republicans refuse to get on board those picks. By forcing the U.S. Senate into recess, critics warn, Trump might try bypass the Senate and ram them through regardless of what senators think.

READ MORE: Ex-GOP congressman explains why Trump’s Gabbard pick is 'perplexing and dangerous'

But according to ABC News' Terry Moran, a major figure on the right — the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia — offered an argument against the approach that Trump is threatening to resort to.

Moran, in a November 20 post on X, formerly Twitter, writes, "This is fun. Listen to Justice Antonin Scalia explain why Trump cannot use a brief recess in the Senate to appoint his most controversial cabinet nominees, in an opinion joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito."

Moran makes his point by linking to what Scalia had to say in a June 2014 ruling.

"As Justice Breyer has just said," Scalia wrote, "I have an opinion in which the Chief Justice, Justice Thomas and Justice Alito joined, we agreed that the appointment at issue here violated the Constitution, but we disagree with the majority's interpretation of the President's unilateral power to make recess appointments."

READ MORE: NC Republican lawmakers move to curb power of statewide offices won by Democrats

Scalia continued, "Most Americans probably did not study the Recess Appointments Clause in grade school, but most of us did learn that the Constitution created a system of checks and balances among the three branches of Government. Those checks and balances are every bit as important as the Bill of Rights. Indeed, they may be more important because without them, Bills of Rights are false guarantees that can be ignored by the one person or the one party in charge you. One important check on the President is the general rule that when he appoints officers, he must do so with the advice and consent of the Senate."

READ MORE: House Republican claims ethics report will 'actually help' Gaetz's AG Bid

During a MAGA rally in Atlanta on Monday afternoon, November 4, Donald Trump's running mate, Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), angrily railed against Vice President Kamala Harris. Vance told the crowd, "In two days, we're going to take out the trash, and the trash's name is Kamala Harris."

In a November 4 post on X, formerly Twitter, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) responded to Vance's rhetoric with biting mockery.

AOC posted, "Not too sure that Republicans going from calling Puerto Ricans garbage to calling a woman garbage is the whiz-bang political chess move they think it is."

READ MORE: Inside a Georgia election official’s months-long push to make it easier to challenge the 2024 results

The Bronx/Queens congresswoman was referring to a MAGA rally at New York City's Madison Square Garden in which one of the speakers, comedian Tony Hinchcliffe, made a racist joke attacking Puerto Rico.

Hinchcliffe described Puerto Rico as a "floating island of garbage," and the backlash came quickly. Some major Puerto Rican celebrities — including Jennifer López, Ricky Martin, Marc Anthony and reggaetón star Bad Bunny — responded by endorsing Kamala Harris for president.

Another well-known Puerto Rican, actress Rosie Pérez, told MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace that Hingecliff's comments made her all the more supportive of Harris' campaign.

Pérez declared, "They picked on the wrong people."

READ MORE: 'Trump is toast': Why Michael Moore is 'confident' Harris will win